FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

> Net neutrality is a more lopsided issue—the arguments against net neutrality are all about legalizing extortion and promoting a tragedy of the commons, or else they're non-specific arguments against regulation of any kind.

Not really. I think that's just your bias for net neutrality showing through.

In my opinion, because of the way internet providers have been allowed legal monopolies, net neutrality is going to be required for fair internet access as the ability for the market to determine winners and compete has been taken away by politics.

But if I was the owner of the pipes themselves? I'm not so sure I'd see it the same way. Try to think about it from another perspective. If you owned something that cost a lot of money to install that connects multiple houses together and then, years later, the government stepped in and explained how you could or could not make money off of it because everyone wants to use it, I'm not so sure you'd feel very positive about it.

Granted it's an imperfect analogy but just trying to show you that even when you think an issue is lopsided, it may not be and it can be difficult to let go of as many BIASes.

Pay close attention. This is how people manage to kill normal sensible ideas.

The attack comes on several levels, all of which are dependent on having at least some website/newsite which is willing to repeat your claims.

Your audience can be broken into 3 buckets (several more, but 3 is enough for a demonstration)

1) The first bucket is non-experts but intelligent. Tie them down in various plausible sounding arguments, primarily designed to appeal to people who dont't know the subject, but can make out logical sounding arguments. These people become your rank and file who serve to sound convincing and tie up experts

2) Experts - With your rank and file, tie up all people who know the subject, or increasingly develop methods to keep them distant from actual contact with people. Over simplify their arguments and try and engage Experts in the arena of PR.

3) Everyone else - show that experts are out of touch, or just lie, advertise the benefits and leave out the risks. Point out that experts are currently in debate and cant settle on the benefits (thanks to your hard work).

The general 3 steps to spreading FUD

The big mainstream political topics might be getting more intertwined, but don't think for a moment that means we weren't already heavily politicized. It's been that way for at least as long as I've been paying attention. So many overlapping opinions can feel less political when the people that would disagree aren't paying attention (or dissent isn't noticeable).

We've spent the last decades proving that there is no soul and no ethics to be found here. Just sleazy after the fact rationalization. Morally bankruptcy extends all the way into the design of software. We abuse the unearned trust of users that have no option but to come to us for tools. And devour our own when they stray too far from the fashionable perspectives.

The end of net neutrality makes us face the possibility of someone doing to us what we did to the nobodies: forcing ourselves into the middle of their day-to-day business and instead of just facilitating what they want to do, finding every single way to extract money from that privileged position.

Like the man who worries about the possibility of his country becoming a police state to distract himself from the fact it already is, we debate topics as if our little slice of the world hasn't already been hollowed out. Even if we don't like that Eich was run out of town, the fact it happened feeds the lie we tell ourselves: that we have the ability spot actual wrongdoing and act meaningfully to stop it.

The system didn't need anything more out of Eich, so he can be disappeared over $1k to Prop 8. Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg have overseen the destruction of privacy as a human value, but they're fine and nobody cares all that much about losing it. The system needed privacy to go.

In 50, 100, 200+ years, when people look back at our time now, who do you think will be seen as more malicous? Eich or Zuck? How long until golden boys of tech turn out like Christopher Columbus? A reductionist and simplistic fairy tale about his amazing contribution to our history has eventually swung. Now all you see are people that continue to "bust myths" about this monster, long after everyone has stopped believing them.

Quoting the top definition of "subvert" from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subverter:

> To overthrow or destroy (a government or an established order or authority).

Note the part in parenthesis, which is exactly why I chose the name for my site. I do not like the FCC, nor government in general.

How does that square with my original comment? In my view, one less government regulation is a step in the right direction. I want government to stop forcing itself into the role of regulator of the internet.

That's jumping to quite the conclusion. As I've responded to a few people here, I have a site where I write about technology and freedom. Net neutrality is a big topic in that area, but I also write about privacy, free speech & censorship, cryptocurrency & blockchain, etc.

I am certainly not a shill, nor spreading propaganda for any one or any industry. I'm a software developer who works in a completely unrelated industry to telecom.

Look, we probably agree on the primary issue here: to maintain a free and open internet. I dislike the AT&Ts and Comcasts as most do here, and I choose not to do business with them.

Where we likely disagree is how to maintain a free and open internet. I don't believe the government should play that role, as they often (in my opinion) push for more and more control once their foot is in the door. That's not what I want.

> This is then kind of thing you see in authoritarian states and rather chilling.

No, actually, throwing labels like "shill" and "propaganda" at someone to discredit them and squelch their desire to speak freely is what you find in authoritarian states.

Every time I post an opinion that goes against the net neutrality norm, I'm accused of being an agent of the FCC or telecom industry.

Can I not hold an opinion that differs from the norm? I posted (in my opinion) a question to provoke thought and discussion in a completely non-trolling, non-harassing, non-toxic way.